Citation network
Community Communications Vs. City of Boulder
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 13, 1982
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Community Communications v. CitySearch
-
of Boulder - 455 U.S. 40 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Community Communications v. CitySearch
-
of Boulder, 455 U.S. 40 (1982) Community Communications Co., Inc. v. CitySearch
-
doctrine of Parker v. BrownSearch
-
exemption from Sherman Act liability announced in Parker v. BrownSearch
-
ordinance was within the city's authority as a home rule municipality, the District Court considered City of Lafayette v. LouisianaSearch
-
We granted certiorari, 450 U.S. 1039 (1981). We reverse. II A Parker v. BrownSearch
-
City of Lafayette v. LouisianaSearch
-
U.S. at 435 U. S. 408 . The plurality opinion rejected this argument, after a discussion of Parker, Goldfarb v. VirginiaSearch
-
State Bar, 421 U. S. 773 (1975), and Bates v. StateSearch
-
U. S. 410 . This standard has since been adopted by a majority of the Court. New Motor Vehicle Board of California v. OrrinSearch
-
California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
The majority cited California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
described in City of Lafayette, 435 U.S. at 435 U. S. 410 , as underlying our decision in Bates v. StateSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Denver Urban Renewal Authority v. ByrneSearch
-
P.2d 1374, 1381 (1980), quoting Four-County Metropolitan Capital Improvement District v. BoardSearch
-
strongly disputes respondent city's premise and its construction of Byrne, citing City and County of Denver v. SweetSearch
-
Colo. 41, 48, 329 P.2d 441, 445 (1958), City and County of Denver v. TihenSearch
-
Boulder cites the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court in Manor Vail Condominium Assn. v. VailSearch
-
Petitioner disputes this proposition and Boulder's reading of Manor Vail, citing in rebuttal United States v. SouthwesternSearch
-
United States v. TopcoSearch
-
See City of Lafayette, 435 U.S. at 435 U. S. 394 -397. We hold today only that the Parker v. BrownSearch
-
U.S. at 435 U. S. 417 , n. 48. Compare, e.g., National Society of Professional Engineers v. UnitedSearch
-
considering the validity of anticompetitive restraint imposed by private agreement), with Exxon Corp. v. GovernorSearch
-
In City of Lafayette v. LouisianaSearch
-
the violation issue is separate and distinct from the exemption issue. A brief reference to our decision in Cantor v. DetroitSearch
-
that its light bulb distribution program was therefore exempt from the antitrust laws on the authority of Parker v. BrownSearch
-
Cf. Cantor v. DetroitSearch
-
and the Federal Antitrust Laws, 49 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 693, 728 (1974)). See also United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. FritzSearch
-
Id. at 428 U. S. 601 , n. 42. See Bates v. StateSearch
-
from the Sherman Act under our decision in Parker v. BrownSearch
-
Exxon Corp. v. GovernorSearch
-
clear and manifest intention of Congress that the federal Act should supersede the police powers of the States. Ray v. AtlanticSearch
-
to relieve a party from the necessity of complying with a prior enactment. See, e.g., National Broiler Marketing Assn. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. PhiladelphiaSearch
-
Silver v. NewSearch
-
state and local regulation which, it is contended, are in conflict with the Sherman Act. Our decision in Parker v. BrownSearch
-
is not an exemption at all, but instead a matter of federal preemption. In New Motor Vehicle Bd. of California v. OrrinSearch
-
the Act arguably gave effect to privately initiated restraints of trade, and thus was invalid under Schwegmann Bros. v. CalvertSearch
-
Id. at 439 U. S. 111 (quoting Exxon Corp. v. GovernorSearch
-
could stand in the face of a purported conflict with the Sherman Act. In California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
by the Court pursuant to the Rule of Reason. In National Society of Professional Engineers Page 455 U. S. 66 v. UnitedSearch
-
competition, or because its procompetitive effects outweigh its anticompetitive effects. See Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTESearch
-
enactments are not invalidated by the Sherman Act merely because they may have anticompetitive effects, Exxon Corp. v. GovernorSearch
-
program would violate the antitrust laws if engaged in by private parties. See California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
Schwegmann Bros. v. CalvertSearch
-
Distillers Corp., 341 U. S. 384 (1951) (same). Cf. Parker v. BrownSearch
-
of the Sherman Act, a municipality's power to regulate the economy would be all but destroyed. See Exxon Corp. v. GovernorSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Community Communications v. CitySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial